Co-Benefit Analysis from the Implementation of the REDD+ Program in West Kalimantan, Indonesia
Keywords:
Co-Benefits, Structural Critical Discourse Analysis, REDD+Abstract
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) remains a key mechanism to mitigate climate change in developing nations. However, forest degradation in Indonesia often stems from local livelihoods that depend on forest resources. Standard REDD+ implementations frequently fail when they overlook livelihood co-benefits for local villagers. This study analyzes how stakeholders in West Kalimantan recognize and generate co-benefits through the REDD+ program. Structural critical discourse analysis (CDA) is employed to examine the entanglement of micro-level community practices and macro-level forest governance policies, particularly following the implementation of Law 23/2014. Field data were collected between 2018 and 2023 through focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews across intervention villages. The results demonstrate that aligning emission reduction targets with community socio-economic welfare—specifically through non-timber forest product (NTFP) development and silvofishery—enabled the program to achieve 293,142 tCO2e in emission reductions (representing 97.71% of the planned minimum target). Furthermore, the welfare performance, evaluated qualitatively through the IDM’s assessment, shows that the status of a very underdeveloped village, which was attributed to the intervened villages, has been reduced to none. Also, villages transitioning from "Developing" to “Developed” to "Independent" village status experienced reductions in village welfare. These all indicate > 80% improvement in villagers' livelihoods. I conclude that securing tangible local co-benefits is essential for sustaining long-term carbon mitigation outcomes in tropical forest landscapes.
References
1. Angelsen, A.; Martius, C.; De Sy, V.; Duchelle, A.E.; Larson, A.M.; Thuy, P.T. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions; CIFOR: Bogor, ID, 2018; ISBN 978-602-387-079-0.
2. Morgan, E.A.; Bush, G.; Mandea, J.Z.; Mareseni, T. Community Evaluation of Forest and REDD+ Governance Quality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. J. Environ. Manage. 2023, 328, page range, [JPSL13.1][HP13.2]doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116891.
3. Vijitharan, S.; Tsusaka, T.W.; Sasaki, N. Evaluating REDD+ Progress and Results-Based Incentives in Sri Lanka: A Comparative Analysis across Southeast and South Asian Countries. Trees, Forests and People 2024, 16, page range, doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100574.
4. Chien, H. Reducing Emissions, Forest Management and Multi-Actor Perspectives: Problem Representation Analysis of Laos REDD+ Programs. Forest and Society 2019, 3, 262–277, doi:10.24259/fs.v3i2.7604.
5. Isyaku, U. What Motivates Communities to Participate in Forest Conservation? A Study of REDD+ Pilot Sites in Cross River, Nigeria. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 133, 102598, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102598.
6. Molina, R.; Costello, C.; Kaffine, D. Sharing and Expanding the Co-Benefits of Conservation. Ecological Economics 2024, 218, page range, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108113.
7. Maring, P. The Strategy of Shifting Cultivators in West Kalimantan in Adapting to the Market Economy: Empirical Evidence Behind Gaps in Interdisciplinary Communication. J. Polit. Ecol. 2020, 27, 1015–1035.
8. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., et al. Eds.; IPCC: New York, USA, 2014; ISBN 9781107654815.
9. Appiah, D.O.; Gbeddy, S.E.A. A Synthesis of the Implementation Ambivalence of REDD+ in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Forest and Society 2018, 2, 92–111, doi:10.24259/fs.v2i1.2918.
10. Maharani, R.S.; Prihatmaja, H.; Karyaatmadja, B.; Sutedja, I.G.N.N.; Kanzaki, M. The Resilience of the Agricultural System in the Midst of the Climate Change Issue in West Kalimantan. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 648, page range, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012125.
11. Work, C. Forest Islands and Castaway Communities: REDD+ and Forest Restoration in Prey Lang Forest. Forests 2017, 8, 1–21, doi:10.3390/f8020047.
12. Moeliono, M.; Brockhaus, M.; Gallemore, C.; Dwisatrio, B.; Maharani, C.D.; Muharrom, E.; Pham, T.T. REDD+ in Indonesia: A New Mode of Governance or Just Another Project? For. Policy Econ. 2020, 121, page range, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102316.
13. Aryal, K.; Maraseni, T.; Subedi, B.P.; Laudari, H.K.; Ghimire, P.L.; Khanal, S.C.; Zhang, H.; Timilsina, R. REDD+ at Risk: Emerging Ten Questions That REDD+ Must Answer. Environ. Sci. Policy 2024, 156, page range, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103744.
14. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement; United Nations, New York: USA, 2015; pp. 24–45, Key: GE.16-01194(E).[JPSL14.1]
15. Sunderlin, W.D.; Atmadja, S.S.; Chervier, C.; Komalasari, M.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Sills, E.O. Can REDD+ Succeed? Occurrence and Influence of Various Combinations of Interventions in Subnational Initiatives. Global Environmental Change 2024, 84, page range, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102777.
16. Manda, S.; Mukanda, N. Can REDD+ Projects Deliver Livelihood Benefits in Private Tenure Arrangements? Experiences from Rural Zambia. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 150, page range, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102952.
17. Kane, S.; Dhiaulhaq, A.; Sapkota, L.M.; Gritten, D. Transforming Forest Landscape Conflicts: The Promises and Perils of Global Forest Management Initiatives Such as REDD+. Forest and Society 2018, 2, 1–17, doi:10.24259/fs.v2i1.3203.
18. Lou, J.; Hultman, N.; Patwardhan, A.; Qiu, Y.L. Integrating Sustainability into Climate Finance by Quantifying the Co-Benefits and Market Impact of Carbon Projects. Commun. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, page range, doi:10.1038/s43247-022-00468-9.
19. Lei, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; Zhang, X.; Che, H.; Yue, X.; Tian, C.; Zhong, J.; Guo, L.; Li, L.; et al. Co-Benefits of Carbon Neutrality in Enhancing and Stabilizing Solar and Wind Energy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 693–700, doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01692-7.
20. Rahman, S.M.; Mori, A. Dissemination and Perception of Adaptation Co-Benefits: Insights from the Coastal Area of Bangladesh. World Dev. Perspect. 2020, 20, page range, doi:https://doi.org/10/1016/j.wdp.2020.100247.
21. Rahman, M.H.; Miah, M.D. Are Protected Forests of Bangladesh Prepared for the Implementation of REDD+? A Forest Governance Analysis from Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. Environments 2017, 4, 1–22, doi:10.3390/environments4020043.
22. Soliev, I.; Theesfeld, I.; Abert, E.; Schramm, W. Benefit Sharing and Conflict Transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ Forest Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 133, 102623, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102623.
23. Chorito, A.B.; Assefa, E. Voices in the Forest: Unraveling REDD+ Discourse and Narratives in the Bale Eco-Region, Ethiopia. Forest and Society 2025, 9, 1–19, doi:10.24259/fs.v9i1.35334.
24. Skutsch, M.; Turnhout, E. REDD+: If Communities Are the Solution, What Is the Problem? World Dev. 2020, 130, 104942, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104942.
25. Prihatmaja, H.; Soedomo, S.; Sunkar, A. Positive Deviance of Tanjung Puting National Park Manager: Case of Teluk Pulai Village. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 528, 012006, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/528/1/012006.
26. Pramova, E.; Locatelli, B.; Mench, A.; Marbyanto, E.; Kartika, K.; Prihatmaja, H. Integrating Adaptation into REDD+: Potential Impacts and Social Return on Investment in Setulang, Malinau District, Indonesia; CIFOR: Bogor, ID, 2013;
27. Sarira, T.V.; Zeng, Y.; Neugarten, R.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Koh, L.P. Co-Benefits of Forest Carbon Projects in Southeast Asia. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 393–396, doi:10.1038/s41893-022-00849-0.
28. Apine, E.; Turner, L.M.; Rodwell, L.D.; Bhatta, R. The Application of the Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Small-Scale Fisheries: The Case of Mud Crab Scylla Serrata in Southwest India. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 170, 17–28, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.024.
29. Setiajiati, F.; Karyaatmadja, B.; Sutedja, I.; Kuswondho, H.; Satria, P.; Sejati; Maharani, R.S. Lessons Learned from Social Forestry Practice in a Forest and Climate Change Project in Kalimantan, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2019, 363, 012001.
30. Sale, J.; Thielke, S. Qualitative Research Is a Fundamental Scientific Process. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2018, 102, 129-133,[JPSL15.1] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.024.
31. Stake, R.E. Studi Kasus. In Handbook of Qualitative Research; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Penerbit Pustaka Belajar: Jakarta, ID, 2009; ISBN 9786028479028.[JPSL16.1][HP16.2]
32. Hudaya, M.; Smark, C. The Role of Case-Study Research in Investigating Local-Government Accountability Reporting: Evidence from Indonesia. Procedia Economics and Finance 2016, 35, 44–53, doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00008-3.
33. Klar, S.; Leeper, T.J. Identities and Intersectionality: A Case for Purposive Sampling in Survey-Experimental Research. In Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment; Lavrakas, P.J., Traugott, M.W., Kennedy, C., Holbrook, A.L., de Leeuw, E.D., West, B.T., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New Jersey, USA, 2019; pp. 419–433.
34. Fairclough, N. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, 1st ed.; Longman Group Limited: New York, USA, 1995; ISBN 0582219809.
35. Hassan, W.; Rehman, A. ur; Zafar, A.; Akbar, F.; Masood, S. An Application of Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional CDA Approach to Fraser Anning’s Speech in the Australian Senate. Linguistic Forum 2019, vol, page range, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14827273.
36. Susanti, A. Critical Discourse Analysis of Children’s Powdered Milk Commercials in Indonesia Using Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model. International Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics 2022, 5, 66–71, doi:10.55637/ijsfl.5.2.5089.66-71.
37. van Dijk, T. A. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 1993, 4(2), 249-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006.[JPSL17.1]
38. Nikander, P.; Vehvilainen, S. [JPSL18.1][HP18.2]Discourse Analysis. Encyclopedia of Human Relationships 2010, vol, 428–430, doi:10.4135/9781412958479.n138.
39. Sihotang, D.R.; Sudrajat, J. Dampak Undang-Undang Nomor 23 tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah: Studi Kasus Pengalihan Kewenangan Reklamasi dan Pascatambang IUP Dalam Rangka PMA. Prosiding XXVII dan Kongres X PERHAPI 2018, 1, 197–206.
40. Adhayanto, O.; Adiputra, Y.S. Dampak Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 Terhadap Peraturan Daerah di Kabupaten Bintan Tahun 2015 (Studi Peralihan Kewenangan di Bidang Kelautan dan Pertambangan). Jurnal Selat 2015, 2, 296-314.
41. Voss, J.-E. Program Hutan dan Perubahan Iklim-Modul Kerjasama Keuangan (ForClime FC); Biro Perencanaan Kementerian Kehutanan: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023, internal report.
42. FORCI Dev Final Report Monitoring Evaluasi Program Forclime FC Module di Kabupaten Berau dan Kapuas Hulu Tahun 2018; Biro Perencanaan Kementerian Kehutanan dan Lingkungan Hidup: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018, internal report.[JPSL19.1][HP19.2]
43. KemenDes PDTT (Kementerian Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Terpencil, dan Transmigrasi). Peraturan Menteri Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, dan Transmigrasi Republik Indonesia No. 2 Tahun 2016 Tentang Indeks Desa Membangun; KemenDes PDTT: Jakarta, ID, 2016;
44. Dephut (Departemen Kehutanan). Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor: P.6/Menhut-II/2009 tentang Pembentukan Wilayah Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan; Dephut: Jakarta, ID, 2009;
45. Pemerintah Indonesia. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2007 tentang Tata Hutan dan Penyusunan Rencana Pengelolaan Hutan, serta Pemanfaatan Hutan; Sekretariat Negara: Jakarta, ID, 2007;
46. Kim, Y.S.; Bae, J.S.; Fisher, L.A.; Latifah, S.; Afifi, M.; Lee, S.M.; Kim, I.A. Indonesia’s Forest Management Units: Effective Intermediaries in REDD+ Implementation? For. Policy Econ. 2016, 62, 69–77, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.004.
47. Pemerintah Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan; Sekretariat Negara: Jakarta, ID, 1999;
48. Peters, H. Game Theory: A Multi-Leveled Approach, 2nd Ed.; Springer Texts in Business and Economics: Berlin, German, 2015; ISBN 9783662469491.
49. Gibbons, R. An Introduction to Applicable Game Theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1997, 11, 127–149, doi:10.1257/jep.11.1.127.
50. Setyawan, A.D. Review: Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in a Native Perspective; Case Study of Shifting Cultivation at the Dayaks of Kalimantan. Nusantara Bioscience 2010, 2, 97–108.
51. Oktaviani, D.; Kurnia, H. Suku Dayak: Mengenal Tradisi Adat Dan Kehidupan Masyarakatnya. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Budaya Indonesia 2023, 1, 10–19.
52. Muhaimin, M.; Saputra, A.N.; Angriani, P.; Adyatma, S.; Arisanty, D. Mapping of Shifting Cultivation (Gilir Balik) Patterns in Dayak Meratus Tribe. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 2021, 525, 475–482.
53. Thaler, G.M. Shifting Cultivation, Contentious Land Change, and Forest Governance in Eastern Borneo. In Proceedings of an international academic conference on land grabbing, conflict and agrarian-environmental transformations: perspectives from East and Southeast Asia, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 5–6 June 2015; pp. 5–6.
54. Dressler, W.H.; Wilson, D.; Clendenning, J.; Cramb, R.; Keenan, R.; Mahanty, S.; Bruun, T.B.; Mertz, O.; Lasco, R.D. The Impact of Swidden Decline on Livelihoods and Ecosystem Services in Southeast Asia: A Review of the Evidence from 1990 to 2015. Ambio 2017, 46, 291–310, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0836-z.
55. Miller, N.H. Topics in Consumer Theory. In Notes on Microeconomic Theory, 2006, available online: https://nmiller.web.illinois.edu/documents/notes/notes4.pdf (accessed on 20 Nov 2024).[JPSL20.1]
56. Chambers, R.; Conway, G.R. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1991; ISBN 0903715589.
57. Tora, T.T.; Degaga, D.T.; Utallo, A.U. Impacts of Livelihood Assets on Livelihood Security in Drought-Prone Gamo Lowlands of Southwest Ethiopia. Geography and Sustainability 2022, 3, 58–67, doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2022.02.002.
58. DFID (Department for International Development). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets; DFID: London, UK, 2000;
59. Soma, H.; Sukhwani, V.; Shaw, R. An Approach to Determining the Linkage between Livelihood Assets and the Housing Conditions in Urban Slums of Dhaka. Journal of Urban Management 2022, 11, 23–36, doi:10.1016/j.jum.2021.08.006.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data have not been made available to the public due to the disclosure statement to the respondents and interviewees. This is to protect their personal identities, which can be revealed through interviews and FGD data. The sole identity to be shown is as it appears in the manuscript, which uses their occupation instead of their name.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hangga Prihatmaja (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
